Talk:Tanks of the interwar period

Purges in the Red Army

The late 1930s saw the so-called "Purges of the Red Army cadres", occurring against the historical background of the Great Purge. The Purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the "politically unreliable element", mainly among the higher-ranking officers. This inevitably provided a convenient pretext for settling personal vendettas and eventually resulted in a witch hunt. Some observers believe that the Purges weakened the Red Army considerably, but this remains a hotly debated subject. Many commentators overlook the fact that the Red Army grew significantly in numbers during the peak of the Purges. In 1937, the Red Army numbered around 1.3 million, and it grew to almost three times that number by June 1941. This necessitated quick promotion of junior officers, often despite their lack of experience or training, with obvious grave implications. In another important consideration, by the end of the Purges the pendulum swung back, restoring and promoting many of the purged officers.

Recently declassified data indicate that in 1937, during the culmination of the Purges, the Red Army had 114,300 officers, of whom 11,034 suffered repression and did not gain rehabilitation until 1940. Yet, in 1938, the Red Army had 179,000 officers (56% more compared to 1937), of whom a further 6,742 suffered repression and did not gain rehabilitation until 1940

In the highest echelons of the Red Army the Purges removed 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army generals, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps generals, 154 out of 186 division generals, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.

(Deng 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

Interesting. Here is a remarkably similar quote: The late 1930s saw the so-called "Purges of the Red Army cadres", occurring against the historical background of the Great Purge. The Purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the "politically unreliable element", mainly among the higher-ranking officers. This inevitably provided a convenient pretext for settling personal vendettas and eventually resulted in a witch hunt. Some observers believe that the Purges weakened the Red Army considerably, but this remains a hotly debated subject. Many commentators overlook the fact that the Red Army grew significantly in numbers during the peak of the Purges. In 1937, the Red Army numbered around 1.3 million, and it grew to almost three times that number by June 1941. This necessitated quick promotion of junior officers, often despite their lack of experience or training, with obvious grave implications. In another important consideration, by the end of the Purges the pendulum swung back, restoring and promoting many of the purged officers. Recently declassified data indicate that in 1937, during the culmination of the Purges, the Red Army had 114,300 officers, of whom 11,034 suffered repression and did not gain rehabilitation until 1940. Yet, in 1938, the Red Army had 179,000 officers (56% more compared to 1937), of whom a further 6,742 suffered repression and did not gain rehabilitation until 1940

In the highest echelons of the Red Army the Purges removed 3 of 5 marshals, 13 of 15 army generals, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps generals, 154 out of 186 division generals, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.'

Source is http://www.thewordbook.com/Red_Army

COL David Glantz, in Stumbling Colossus, cites a figure of 54,714 officers "repressed" based on the records of the Red Army and USSR Supreme Court documents. He calls the effects "devastating". The simultaneous growth of the Red Army from january 1938 to June 1941 made the problem worse, not better. DMorpheus 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why it is intresting all I wanted to point out is that tens of thousands were not killed.

It said before that 10 of thousands were killed i changed that.

I didnt add anywhere to the article that the purges were good in any way at all. All I did was to change the "tens of thousands were executed"

(Deng 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Are you sure it wasn't tens of thousands? "Repression" includes execution, as well as exile and imprisonment which could lead to death, or may even be used as a synonym for show trial and execution. Many or most "rehabilitations" were posthumous. —Michael Z. 2006-02-24 01:15 Z

99.99% sure

When it comes to the military 8k DEAD

The rest were either sent to work camps or prisons.

(Deng 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Mzajac is right, "repression" in Soviet court records covers the full spectrum from a jail sentence to execution, and 'rehabilitation' could be posthumous. Not always, of course - Marshal Rokossovsky was jailed and tortured during the Great Purge, but obviously was rehabbed and had a very successful career during and after WW2. The posthumous rehabs were meaningful because the surviving family members fared better if their deceased members had been rehabbed.

When I used the word "interesting" to describe Deng's post above, what I meant was that it was a near verbatim quote from an uncited source. DMorpheus 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I didnt get it from that page i got the quote from wiki and your "intresting" remark is clearly to disscredit me somehow

(Deng 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Infantry & cruiser tanks

Comments about British tank design in the 1930's and the division of tanks into 'I' and 'Cruiser' may be assisted by reference to 'Men, Ideas and Tanks: British Military Thought and Armoured Forces, 1903-39' by J.P. Harris. According to him it was a simple matter of engine power that led to the abandonment of the 'medium' tank. The two types made early war British tanks better at the separate tasks of battlefield support and long-range exploitation than a single design with a bit more armour than a Cruiser and a bit more speed than an 'I' tank. It may also be noticed that pre-war Pz II, III and IV correspond to the same division of tasks as the British one. Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The same theories were reflected to some degree in American tank destroyers vs their tanks, which didn't get a high-velocity gun until 1944 (and even then US planners refused to accept the much better British 17-pdr). Also in Soviet pre-war tanks (T-26 infantry tank vs BT fast tank), but the introduction of the next Soviet infantry tank, the T-50, was delayed until well into the war and botched, so the excellent T-34 ended up being the precursor of the main battle tank by default. —Michael Z. 2008-10-04 16:57 z

Tetrarch?

What is the British light tank Tetrarch tank doing here? It was not produced until the war had already started. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bt2.jpg (discussion)
• Bt7 3.jpg (discussion)
• Bt7a 1.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)